Aston & Anor vThe Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin) (10 July 2013)

Aston & Anor vThe Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Ors [2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin) (10 July 2013)

The screening opinion was not unlawful as it addressed the correct statutory question and material considerations; the Inspector did not err in law in his approach to development plan policies or prematurity; and the refusal to allow cross-examination on flood risk was within the Inspector's discretion and did not render the process unfair.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1936 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Deborah Jane Aston; Claimant: Westcott Meadow Action Group Ltd; First Defendant: The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Mole Valley District Council; Third Defendant: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Permission, Development Plan Policies, Judicial Review, Screening Opinion, Prematurity, Sustainability, Housing Land Supply
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Permission Development Plan Policies Judicial Review Screening Opinion +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deborah Jane Aston

Claimant

Westcott Meadow Action Group Ltd

Claimant

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Mole Valley District Council

Second Defendant

Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (planning) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the screening opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 was unlawful
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector failed to address material considerations regarding development plan policies and prematurity
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector acted unfairly in refusing cross-examination on flood risk

Ratio Decidendi

The screening opinion was not unlawful as it addressed the correct statutory question and material considerations; the Inspector did not err in law in his approach to development plan policies or prematurity; and the refusal to allow cross-examination on flood risk was within the Inspector's discretion and did not render the process unfair.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed